Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Andrea Glandon
38:51
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Ariel Liang
40:07
https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#heading=h.xufozeaoexkx
Maxim Alzoba
40:07
please post the URL to the wiki of the meeting to chat
Andrea Glandon
40:20
https://community.icann.org/x/xgGNC
Maxim Alzoba
41:15
thanks
Paul McGrady
42:08
Thanks Zak
David McAuley (Verisign)
44:16
That wording tweak seems to make sense
Paul McGrady
44:43
nothing to add
Paul McGrady
49:27
Are "mechanisms" the same thing a "contractual provisions"? I don't think it is.
Maxim Alzoba
49:42
new
Lori Schulman, INTA
50:09
Agree that this is about provider accountability not CPs accountability
Paul McGrady
50:32
What are the mechanisms? I think Maxim may be conflating contractual provisions with mechanisms.
Maxim Alzoba
50:34
or procedures
Maxim Alzoba
50:42
better than policies
Maxim Alzoba
51:11
mechanism - compliant sent to icann complaint
Maxim Alzoba
51:45
everything else is in RA, RAA, URS documents (3 items)
Maxim Alzoba
52:03
I mean to ICANN Compliance dept
Maxim Alzoba
52:42
we might need some text describing this
Maxim Alzoba
53:49
feelings are not facts
Maxim Alzoba
53:57
so we can not follow it
Susan.Payne
54:25
@Phil - I believe so
Paul McGrady
54:47
Otherwise, the recommendation would be a nullity.
Maxim Alzoba
55:02
maybe it has to
Paul McGrady
01:00:31
I understand Maxim's position, but I don't think a single WG member should have a veto over.
Paul McGrady
01:00:46
the work of the WG and the public comment
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:16
we do not see facts of what feelings are based on
Ankur Raheja
01:01:29
+1 Zak
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:55
text clearly saying that the mechanism required for CPH
Paul Tattersfield
01:02:49
Agree Paul
Griffin Barnett
01:03:06
Apologies for joining late, had a prior call run 30 minutes over time
Susan.Payne
01:03:32
agree Paul, this recommendation has been well supported throughout process
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:46
subgroup is not the whole WG
Susan.Payne
01:04:14
@Maxim, whole WG agreed the proosed recommendation that went out to public comment
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:05:19
I think Phil's idea about IRT text is a good one, not in the rec but in the explanation to caution about creating a new mechanism whare one already exists
Jason Schaeffer
01:05:33
+1 David
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:03
please add minority opinion
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:44
please set it as an action item for me
Ariel Liang
01:07:44
Noted Maxim
Philip Corwin
01:09:17
Noting that while the recommendation may seem elementary, it responded to a real problem that the WG uncovered
Paul McGrady
01:11:29
Nothing to add
Ariel Liang
01:12:04
highlighted on screen
Ariel Liang
01:12:19
PCRT Row #25: It would be ideal for ICANN to maintain a single source of accurate and up-to-date contact information that registries, registrars and URS providers can check against.
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:05
speaking about #4 , it was not only my opinion, public comment of RySG did not support it, so it is Registries, not just a member of RPM WG
Ariel Liang
01:13:08
INTA’s proposed rewording: “The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org, Registries, Registrars, and URS Providers take appropriate steps to ensure that each other’s contact details are up to date in order to effectively fulfill the notice requirements set forth in the URS Procedure para 4.”
Ariel Liang
01:14:54
David hand’s up
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:01
hand up
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:16:32
INTA typically makes proposals based on experience.
Susan.Payne
01:16:33
agree with David that the INTA tweak seems beneficial
Paul Tattersfield
01:16:34
David +1
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:42
I did reach out, thanks Zak
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:50
got no responses
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:56
certificate of a recognized Certificate Authority does not cost that much
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:12
don't care does not mean it is not a problem
Paul McGrady
01:23:49
+1 Zak
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:23:52
@Zak -- thank you.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:23:59
INTA supports as well.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:55
I support the INTA comment or as implementation guidance as Mary notes
Mary Wong
01:25:54
Some implementation notes may also be in the form of clarifying text in the contextual section (as Phil is saying, I believe).
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:26:10
You are very welcome.
Mary Wong
01:32:05
And of course you will be able to review the final text of any additional language or implementation guidance that this table is converted into for the Final Report. Thank you Phil and all!
Ariel Liang
01:32:39
That’s correct
Paul McGrady
01:32:55
Yay!!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:33:17
Thanks Phil, staff, and all
Paul Tattersfield
01:33:23
Thanks Phil, bye all
Ariel Liang
01:33:27
Next ones: URS Rec #6 & Q#4, Rec #7, Rec #8 & Q#5
Jason Schaeffer
01:33:37
Thanks, Phil
Paul McGrady
01:33:42
@Staff - have we set times up yet for the small groups?
Paul McGrady
01:33:52
I don't recall seeing invites or emails.
Mary Wong
01:34:13
@Paul, we had suggested the groups start with the Google Docs that were created and discuss via email.
Mary Wong
01:34:27
We can certainly arrange a call if you think it’s needed, of course.
Paul McGrady
01:34:37
@Mary - I think that would make sense.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:34:45
Sorry, I might have missed this, but there's also the final GIs wording
Mary Wong
01:34:53
We will recirculate the Google Doc links to the small group.
Paul McGrady
01:35:17
Thanks Mary. Can you do a Doodle as well for a call mid next week?
Mary Wong
01:35:21
@Rebecca - yes staff will circulate the final proposed text for discussion via the list.
Paul Tattersfield
01:36:06
thanks mary
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:07
bye all
Ankur Raheja
01:36:10
Thanks